Daily Mail - Revision history

Bacchus: Text replacement - "tbe " to "the "

2024-04-29T00:20:55Z

Text replacement - "tbe " to "the "

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 28 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''''Daily Mail''''' is a British daily newspaper.		The '''''Daily Mail''''' is a British daily newspaper.

	In 2017, ~~tbe~~ leftist [[Wikipedia]] banned ~~tbe~~ right-wing ''Daily Mail'', then ~~tbe~~ United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 (mostly anonymous) participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before ~~tbe~~ newspaper “''was shortlisted for 15 awards at ~~tbe~~ British Press Awards, ~~tbe~~ news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, ~~tbe~~ Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, ~~tbe~~ website remains happy to use ~~tbe~~ state propaganda outlets of many of ~~tbe~~ world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, ~~tbe~~ Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in ~~tbe~~ Daily Express, and ten published by ~~tbe~~ Telegraph group.''”<ref>The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html</ref>		In 2017, the leftist [[Wikipedia]] banned the right-wing ''Daily Mail'', then the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 (mostly anonymous) participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before the newspaper “''was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, the Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in the Daily Express, and ten published by the Telegraph group.''”<ref>The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html</ref>

	== External links ==		== External links ==

Bacchus: Text replacement - " the " to " tbe "

2024-04-26T17:05:36Z

Text replacement - " the " to " tbe "

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:05, 26 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The '''''Daily Mail''''' is a British daily newspaper.		The '''''Daily Mail''''' is a British daily newspaper.

	In 2017, ~~the~~ leftist [[Wikipedia]] banned ~~the~~ right-wing ''Daily Mail'', then ~~the~~ United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 (mostly anonymous) participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before ~~the~~ newspaper “''was shortlisted for 15 awards at ~~the~~ British Press Awards, ~~the~~ news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, ~~the~~ Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, ~~the~~ website remains happy to use ~~the~~ state propaganda outlets of many of ~~the~~ world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, ~~the~~ Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in ~~the~~ Daily Express, and ten published by ~~the~~ Telegraph group.''”<ref>The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html</ref>		In 2017, tbe leftist [[Wikipedia]] banned tbe right-wing ''Daily Mail'', then tbe United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 (mostly anonymous) participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before tbe newspaper “''was shortlisted for 15 awards at tbe British Press Awards, tbe news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, tbe Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, tbe website remains happy to use tbe state propaganda outlets of many of tbe world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, tbe Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in tbe Daily Express, and ten published by tbe Telegraph group.''”<ref>The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html</ref>

	== External links ==		== External links ==

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: 1 revision imported

2024-02-06T22:41:01Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:41, 6 February 2024
(No difference)

en>Upplysning at 15:35, 9 April 2020

2020-04-09T15:35:47Z

New page

The '''''Daily Mail''''' is a British daily newspaper.

In 2017, the leftist [[Wikipedia]] banned the right-wing ''Daily Mail'', then the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper, from being used as a source in Wikipedia, after a vote with 77 (mostly anonymous) participants. The newspaper was claimed to be unreliable, but no statistics were given in support of this claim. Daily Mail wrote that this occurred just before the newspaper “''was shortlisted for 15 awards at the British Press Awards, the news industry’s Oscars. (Indeed, as we shall see, the Mail has an enviable record on accuracy.) […] Curiously, though it has now placed a ban on this paper, the website remains happy to use the state propaganda outlets of many of the world’s most repressive and autocratic Left-wing dictatorships as a source for information. […] In 2015, with our sister website MailOnline, the Mail published more than half a million stories; IPSO upheld complaints against two of them. By way of comparison, five articles in The Times had complaints of one kind or another upheld against them, along with four in the Daily Express, and ten published by the Telegraph group.''”<ref>The making of a Wiki-Lie: Chilling story of one twisted oddball and a handful of anonymous activists who appointed themselves as censors to promote their own warped agenda on a website that's a byword for inaccuracy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280502/Anonymous-Wikipedia-activists-promote-warped-agenda.html</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://dailymail.co.uk/ Website]

{{references}}

[[Category:Newspapers]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]